SAURABH LAVANIA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.C. Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 13.09.2005, passed in the Original Application No. 256 of 2005 (in short "OA") (Sati Nath Khan v. Union of India and others) filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (in short "Tribunal") under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
(3.) The Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 13.09.2005 considered the issue related to disagreement memo issued by the Disciplinary Authority to the applicant-respondent through the letter dated 08.06.2004 in relation to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Report submitted by him vide letter dated 16.04.2003. The Tribunal while partly allowing the OA considered the disagreement memo in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another; (1999) 7 SCC 739. The Tribunal while partly allowing the OA recorded the specific observation, which reads as under:- "In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Yogi Nath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra JT 1999 (7) SC-62, if before disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer the disciplinary authority has not followed the due process of law it vitiates the order of punishment. Non following the due process and denial of reasonable opportunity has caused prejudice to applicant and is infraction to the principle of natural justice, which are inbuilt in the Rules if not specifically provided. In the light of our taking a final view of the matter, the applicant has been denied opportunity to show cause." ;